Controlling Victimization in Schools: Effective Discipline and Control Strategies in a County in Ohio, 1994 (ICPSR 2587)

Citation

Lab, Steven P., and Clark, Richard D. Controlling Victimization in Schools: Effective Discipline and Control Strategies in a County in Ohio, 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02587.v1

Summary

The purpose of this study was to gather evidence on the
relationship between discipline and the control of victimization in
schools and to investigate the effectiveness of humanistic versus
coercive disciplinary measures. Survey data were obtained from students, teachers,
and principals in each of the 44 junior and senior high schools in a
county in Ohio that agreed to participate in the study. The data
represent roughly a six-month time frame. Students in grades 7 through
12 were anonymously surveyed in February 1994. The Student Survey (Part 1)
was randomly distributed to approximately half of the students in all
classrooms in each school. The other half of the students received a
different survey that focused on drug use among students (not
available with this collection). The teacher (Part 2) and principal
(Part 3) surveys were completed at the same time as the student
survey. The principal survey included both closed-ended and open-ended
questions, while all questions on the student and teacher surveys were
closed-ended, with a finite set of answers from which to choose. The
three questionnaires were designed to gather respondent demographics,
perceptions about school discipline and control, information about
weapons and gangs in the school, and perceptions about school crime,
including personal victimization and responses to victimization. All
three surveys asked whether the school had a student court and, if so,
what sanctions could be imposed by the student court for various forms
of student misconduct. The student survey and teacher surveys also
asked about the availability at school of various controlled
drugs. The student survey elicited information about the student's
fear of crime in the school and on the way to and from school,
avoidance behaviors, and possession of weapons for protection. Data
were also obtained from the principals on each school's
suspension/expulsion rate, the number and type of security guards
and/or devices used within the school, and other school safety
measures. In addition to the surveys, census data were acquired for a
one-quarter-mile radius around each participating school's campus,
providing population demographics, educational attainment, employment
status, marital status, income levels, and area housing
information. Also, arrest statistics for six separate crimes (personal
crime, property crime, simple assault, disorderly conduct,
drug/alcohol offenses, and weapons offenses) for the reporting
district in which each school was located were obtained from local police
departments. Finally, the quality of the immediate neighborhood was
assessed by means of a "windshield" survey in which the researchers
conducted a visual inventory of various neighborhood characteristics:
type and quality of housing in the area, types of businesses, presence
of graffiti and gang graffiti, number of abandoned cars, and the
number and perceived age of pedestrians and people loitering in the
area. These contextual data are also contained in Part 3.

Citation

Lab, Steven P., and Clark, Richard D. Controlling Victimization in Schools: Effective Discipline and Control Strategies in a County in Ohio, 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02587.v1

Geographic Coverage

Time Period(s)

Date of Collection

Study Purpose

Evidence continues to mount that crime in schools
is a critical concern in contemporary America, despite cautions from
historians that similar problems have existed for centuries. While no
consensus exists on the size of the problem, the results of every
investigation have revealed that a large number of students are
victimized at school. Coupled with the fact that students are required
to attend school, these results make the issue of in-school
victimization a priority concern for students, parents, educators, and
the criminal justice system. This concern has led to calls for greater
discipline and control through diverse mechanisms such as using armed
security guards and metal detectors and establishing profit-making
schools. However, discipline and control may also be achieved through
a variety of more humanistic, normative methods rather than the
imposition of coercive measures -- for example, student participation
in policy-making, particularly in relation to school rules,
regulations, and sanctions. While concern over safety in schools has
grown dramatically, no consensus exists on the impact of various forms
of discipline and control to eliminate or curtail in-school
victimization. This study gathered evidence on the relationship
between discipline and the control of victimization in schools and
investigated the effectiveness of humanistic versus coercive
disciplinary measures. The study focused on four hypotheses: (1)
School discipline and control measures are negatively related to
levels of in-school victimization. This hypothesis assumes that
changes in discipline and control precede changes in victimization
based on the common assumption that victimization levels respond to
discipline and control efforts (or the lack thereof) rather than the
reverse. (2) More humanistic/consensual discipline/control measures
have a greater negative impact on in-school victimization than do
coercive/custodial measures. (3) The community environment has a
strong impact on the level of in-school victimization. (4) The
presence of gangs in the school is positively related to the level of
in-school victimization.

Study Design

Survey data were obtained from students, teachers,
and principals in each of the 44 junior and senior high schools in a
county in Ohio that agreed to participate in the study. Questionnaires
were designed to gather respondent demographics, perceptions about
school discipline and control, and perceptions about school crime,
including personal victimization and responses to victimization.
Respondents were asked to answer all questions in relation to "since
the start of the school year." Based on the dates of survey
administration, the data represent roughly a six-month time
frame. Students in grades 7 through 12 were anonymously surveyed in
February 1994. The Student Survey (Part 1) was randomly distributed to
approximately half of the students in all classrooms in each
school. The other half of the students received a different survey
that focused on drug use among students (not available with this
collection). The teacher (Part 2) and principal (Part 3) surveys were
completed at the same time as the student survey. The principal survey
included both closed-ended and open-ended questions while all
questions on the student and teacher surveys were closed-ended, with a
finite set of answers from which to choose. In addition to the
surveys, census data were acquired for a one-quarter-mile radius
around each participating school's campus. Also, arrest statistics for
the reporting district in which each school was located were obtained from
local police departments. Finally, the quality of the immediate
neighborhood was assessed by means of a "windshield" survey in which
the researchers conducted a visual inventory of various neighborhood
characteristics. These contextual data are also contained in Part 3.

Sample

Data were obtained from 44 junior and senior high schools.

Universe

All public and private schools in a county in Ohio.

Unit(s) of Observation

Parts 1-2: Individuals, Part 3: Institutions

Data Source

(1) self-enumerated forms, (2) data from the Bureau of
the Census, (3) statistics from local police departments, and (4) a
"windshield survey"

Data Type(s)

survey data

Description of Variables

The student questionnaire contained items on school
discipline and control procedures, victimization at school, fear of
crime in school and on the bus to and from school, avoidance
behaviors, gang activity, possession of weapons for protection,
availability of various controlled drugs, and respondent
demographics. The teacher survey included questions on teacher
perceptions of discipline, control, and school safety, victimization
problems at school, availability of various controlled drugs, and
respondent demographics. The principal survey obtained information on
school demographics, victimization and gang problems at school,
discipline and control measures used by the school, and principal
demographics. Data were also obtained from the principals on each
school's suspension/expulsion rate, the number and type of security
guards and/or devices used within the school, and other school safety
measures. All three surveys asked whether the school had a student
court and if so, what sanctions could be imposed by the student court
for various forms of student misconduct. Part 3 also includes: (1)
census data providing population demographics, educational attainment,
employment status, marital status, income levels, and area housing
information, (2) arrest rates for six separate crimes: personal crime,
property crime, simple assault, disorderly conduct, drug/alcohol
offenses, and weapons offenses, and (3) items from a "windshield
survey" assessing the type and quality of housing in the area, types
of businesses, the presence of graffiti and gang graffiti, the number
of abandoned cars, and the number and perceived age of pedestrians and
people loitering in the area.

Response Rates

In the public school systems, data were obtained
from 88 percent of the public junior high schools (15 of 17) and
senior high schools (16 of 18) in the county. In the Catholic school
system, data were obtained from 67 percent of the high schools (4 of
6) and 24 percent of the schools containing grades 7 and 8 (8 of 33).
The 44th school was a large private, nondenominational school. The
initial count of 11,085 usable student questionnaires represented
approximately 35 percent of the students in the participating
schools. The initial count of 1,045 usable teacher surveys resulted in
approximately a 40-percent response rate. Principal questionnaires
were returned from 43 of the 44 participating schools, giving a
response rate of 98 percent. One principal did not respond, so data
were located from district files for that school. At the time the
data files were constructed, some cases were eliminated from the
student and teacher data due to uncertainty as to which schools the
surveys referred to.

Presence of Common Scales

Original Release Date

1998-12-10

Version Date

2006-03-30

Version History

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

1998-12-10 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

2006-03-30 File CB2587.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

Notes

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).